BRITAIN'S DANGER

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 11, 13 July 1931, Page 7

BRITAIN'S DANGER

SHRINKING NAVY

MORE CRUISERS NEEDED

obsolete Vessels

The First Lord of the Admiralty re- J ecntly raised the question whether the ! ■~~ decline in our own naval expenditure was saiic policy, in view of the steady rise in that of almost overy other country, writes Hector C. Bywater in the "Daily Telegraph." In this connection I am able to disclose further startling evidence of the waning of \ British sea power. . ; The process of wastage in the mate- j rial of the Navy continues at an alarm- \ ing pace, and the measures being taken | to check it are wholly inadequate. Al- j ready the British' Fleet contains a ! higher percentage of obsolete vessels : thaa any other, and unless a large programme of replacement is put in hand without avoidable delay the bulk of our tonnage a few years hence will be unserviceable if or war. On the eve of the London Naval-Conference the Prime Minister declared that "Britain's Navy ! is Britain herself. We are.,a people of the sea, and the sea is our security . and our safety." Nevertheless, up to now the Government has consistently | shirked its naval responsibilities. Not only has it cancelled, on the pretext of promoting disarmament, many new ships that Parliament had formally authorised, but it is deliberately retarding the construction of the few vessels that survive. As a result, our relative strongth at sea is shrinking visibly, and it seems inevitable that Our future Navy -will be far below the very modest standard of power prescribed by the London Treaty. MANY OBSOLETE. Between now and "1935, inclusive, thirty-one of our cruisers will become obsolete by passing the age limit of iixteen years. To meet this heavy wastage the Government has so far ordered four now cruisers, which will not be jieady for sea before the end' of 1933. Consequently, by the date in ques|ion a substantial proportion of our ilt-uisers will be of an antiquated type *hich would fall an easy prey to the powerful modern- cruisers with which every major foreign navy will then be ftmply provided. As I have already pointed out,_ the JEbverament has repeatedly claimed isredit for utilising the 1930 naval programme as a palliative for unemployment. What are the facts? Although tho three small cruisers in tho programme ■were" authorised as long ago as last iJuly, practically no money has been set aside for them, and they are not likely to be laid down until the late cummer or autumn of/this year. I am able to roveal that the eight destroyers included in • the programme have not even been ordered, though in SJecember last Government spokesmen were dwelling upon tho relief to unemployment which these contracts would, J>ring to the Clyde, Tyncsifte, Bawow, jiraSrSouthampton. • i TTNCERTAIN. ~ On inquiry at the Admiralty I was bffi&SHy informed that the destroyer fc&ntraots were expected to be placed almost at once, but that it was impossible to say when the vessel^ would fee actually begun, '■'.'2To information could bo gleaned as %o tho dates of laying down the flßstroyer-leader Duncan, the submarines Porpoise, Starfish, arid Seahorse, 'the net-layor Guardian, or the sloops - 35almoutn, Milford, \Veston-super-Mare, and Dundee, which make up .tho xest 2e the programme. v lt will be seen, therefore,-that the (Government's 1930 naval programme, t^hich was to do'so much to alleviate unemployment, exists as yet only on waper. The total cost is estimated at £9 500,000, but of this amount little more than £23,000 is to be expended lief ore,the close of tho financial year. '■'. The cruiser position becomes increasingly grave. The British Empire now .possesses fifty-four " cruisers. Five Jjfears hence thirty-one of these ships %11 be over age, and up to the present pnly five replacement ships have been ' ordered, giving a total of twenty-eight Mausers likely to be serviceable in : ©36. CONFERENCE HANDICAP. 'As the London Treaty allows us fifty ' cruisers in all, we ought not merely to T>uiia, but complete, twenty-two new Vessels by that year. Under current ; conditions it will take about_ thirty '-. months to complete a small cruiser, so that to reach our Treaty strength we Ejhould lay down six or seven, cruisers : each financial year up to 1933-34. '>: Needless to say, tho present' Govern-, Bient show no readiness, to undortako Vguch large shipbuilding commitments, the necessity for which is due to their studied neglect of naval requirements. • They apparently propose to leave this onerous burden to their successors, but by then it will almost certainly be too late to make good the ground we have ' lost. ■ ' In that- case we shall go into the Naval Conference of 1936 handicapped by a huge deficit in modern cruiser tonnage, and therefore in no position to bargain for a measure of sea power con- " sistent with security. " ' SHRINKING PERSONNEL. Nor is the process of starving the Navy confined to shipbuilding alone. "As Admiral Sir Boger Keyes has just reminded the country, our naval per- ' sonnel has shrunk from 146,000 in 1914 to 90,000 odd in the present year, while . within the same period the naval personnel of tho United States has grown . from 67,000 to 114,000, and that of i Japan from. 50,000 to 85,000. Our personnel- to-day is the smallest wo have ; had for thirty-four years. ■ So ruthlessly has the Fleet's fuel ■ 'allowance been cut down that our war- : ships are scarcely ever able to travel at high, speed. Owing to shortage of ; fuel oil—-caused in part by the sending of seven ships to the West Indies "■.; r—the forthcoming combined exercises '(£f the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets, by far the most important of the naval year, must be curtailed.